Official Fiesta Bowl Thread: tOSU vs Klempsin

[Knight Shift]

Trying to find @Knight Shift @FanuSanu52 @MADHAT1 about our ACC debate. What now? Your'e gonna cheer for the team you despise the most to win the Rose Bowl?

ACC is a weak conference after Clemson and FSU. Will admit that Climpsun looked great tonight and tOSU not so much. F Penn State.

 

[MADHAT1]

Money, I'm not hard to find and when I see something I don't hide or boo hoo my football program and claim basketball is what counts.
Just remember that when you call me out and remember this:
Syracuse isn't Clemson or FSU, just like Rutgers isn't OSU or Michigan
But Rutgers fans expect thir FB program to become like them, whereas
Syracuse fans ( likle you) are willing to accept mediocrity and whine about the support their fb program gets. Rutgers fans during terrible years did the same because terrible programs usually don't have the support the good ones get.
Syracuse is a terrible football program and isn't supported.
Rutgers went down the last two years, but it will rise because it has the support to do that.
As for ACC-B1G comparison, top programs of each conference can beat the other on any given day, but from the middle down the B1G is far better than the ACC is and it's only times like today that some ACC fans ( even those that are from schools that are the dregs of that conference) puff out this chest acting like the ACC is the best .
Sadly they are the only ones that think that.
Enjoy the wins Money, but the ACC is still a second their P-5 coherence that has a ways to go to be compared with the best (B1G & SEC)

 

[money3189]

ACC is a weak conference after Clemson and FSU. Will admit that Climpsun looked great tonight and tOSU not so much. F Penn State.

Lol. Never will get it

 

[Knight Shift]

Lol. Never will get it

No you won't get it. You are a Sadexcuse fan.

 

[money3189]

No you won't get it. You are a Sadexcuse fan.

lol good stuff my man.

 

[money3189]

Money, I'm not hard to find and when I see something I don't hide or boo hoo my football program and claim basketball is what counts.
Just remember that when you call me out and remember this:
Syracuse isn't Clemson or FSU, just like Rutgers isn't OSU or Michigan
But Rutgers fans expect thir FB program to become like them, whereas
Syracuse fans ( likle you) are willing to accept mediocrity and whine about the support their fb program gets. Rutgers fans during terrible years did the same because terrible programs usually don't have the support the good ones get.
Syracuse is a terrible football program and isn't supported.
Rutgers went down the last two years, but it will rise because it has the support to do that.
As for ACC-B1G comparison, top programs of each conference can beat the other on any given day, but from the middle down the B1G is far better than the ACC is and it's only times like today that some ACC fans ( even those that are from schools that are the dregs of that conference) puff out this chest acting like the ACC is the best .
Sadly they are the only ones that think that.
Enjoy the wins Money, but the ACC is still a second their P-5 coherence that has a ways to go to be compared with the best (B1G & SEC)

Good stuff

 

[money3189]

Clemson for sure has good players. No question about that. My point is that they aren't 31 points better than OSUs players. In fact, as a whole, they probably aren't better at all. OSU had 8 first team all B1G players this year. Given a slight youth differential, I'm willing to argue that the talent on the two teams is roughly equal.

Given that, what can account for a 31-0 loss? Coaching. Clemson came out knowing what they were doing and having a superior game plan from the git go. I just don't see how that can be disputed. They were also much more fired up. Who do you attribute that to?

I think OSU has superior talent to almost everybody they play, but an approach to the game that says, "We'll out-tough 'em." That was certainly Schiano's approach here. Worked against inferior teams. Swinney, on the other hand, had a scheme devised specifically for OSU's strengths and weaknesses, and it worked beautifully.

Next week, Swinney has an even bigger challenge and less time to devise. If he wins, he's the college equivalent of Belichek.

Do you think OSU is the only team that recruits well? Clemson has great players. They get the best commits from talent rich southern states. Why do you think OSU have better players? I see one game changing athlete for OSU and that's Curtis Samuel. Clemson has several. They had the 4th and 6th ranked recruiting class the last couple years. They have the #1 QB committed for the next 2 years. lol. Its an elite program. Very hard to get to back to back championship games. Clemson has beat them twice in a row.

 

[money3189]

When ESPN gets the full stats posted, go look at who had more sacks and tackles for loss. The bottom line on this game is simple. Clemson's defensive line whipped Ohio St's offensive line. You simply can't run a bunch of long developing plays when your offensive line is getting beaten consistently.

You keep mentioning that Ohio St got out-schemed. How exactly? Don't give me the generic "they didn't spread the field enough" answer. I want you to specifically tell me how Ohio St got outschemed. What was the scheme in pass protection? In run blocking? In pass routes? If you can't diagram out those plays, then you can't tell me if a team got "outschemed."

I will also make one other point. I don't agree at all that the Big Ten was better than the ACC this year. The ACC was 3-1 vs the Big Ten during the regular season, and was again 3-1 in bowl games. The ACC beat the Big Ten's champion, the Big Ten's playoff representative, and the Big Ten's NY6 representative.



Again, I can tell you exactly what accounts for 31-0. Clemson dominated the line of scrimmage. All the "scheming" is about as worthless as used toilet paper if you can't block the other team.

Exactly. People want to ignore the facts

 

[SkilletHead2]

When ESPN gets the full stats posted, go look at who had more sacks and tackles for loss. The bottom line on this game is simple. Clemson's defensive line whipped Ohio St's offensive line. You simply can't run a bunch of long developing plays when your offensive line is getting beaten consistently.

You keep mentioning that Ohio St got out-schemed. How exactly? Don't give me the generic "they didn't spread the field enough" answer. I want you to specifically tell me how Ohio St got outschemed. What was the scheme in pass protection? In run blocking? In pass routes? If you can't diagram out those plays, then you can't tell me if a team got "outschemed."

I will also make one other point. I don't agree at all that the Big Ten was better than the ACC this year. The ACC was 3-1 vs the Big Ten during the regular season, and was again 3-1 in bowl games. The ACC beat the Big Ten's champion, the Big Ten's playoff representative, and the Big Ten's NY6 representative.



Again, I can tell you exactly what accounts for 31-0. Clemson dominated the line of scrimmage. All the "scheming" is about as worthless as used toilet paper if you can't block the other team.

Nothing is funnier than the "do this homework" post to make an argument. Especially when combined with the pre-emptive, "...and don't you dare present those data that everyone will recognize is a good argument against my point."

Thanks, topdeck, but I'll make my arguments, and you can make yours.

My point, and I'll make it again, is that Dabo Swinney utterly outcoached Urban Meyer. That is why Clemson won 31-0. The argument that they won because they have a host of better players is absurd on the face of it, and not supported by any data.

If you want to look at the relative quality of the players on the two teams, you have to use some metric. If you look at the star rankings of starters on the two teams, OSU has the edge (using 247 Sports). money3189 wanted to compare recruiting classes. With Ohio State? From 2012 to 2016, 247, OSU has 5, 2, 3, 7, 4 in rankings. Clemson has 15, 15, 17, 9, 11. If you look at the number of 5 and 4 star players, it becomes even more dramatic. If you look at current All Americans, OSU has the edge. If you look at current all-conference ratings, the teams are tied (counting first and second teams).

Now, there is no doubt that Clemson kicked OSU up and down the field. But why? Mike, topdeck, and money want to argue that they have much better players. But the data, as we have just seen, don't come close to supporting that argument. The quality of the players is roughly equal for the two teams. So we can discard the Jimmy's and Joe's argument from the perspective of when they walked onto the field.

Topdeck then wants to argue that TFL and sacks will prove the point. But why? Why not look at percent completion, yards per carry, quarterback rating, or any of a dozen other statistics? All of these are influenced both by how well the players played and how well coached they were. But two of the statistics that don't really show much difference in this particular game are TFL and sacks. Oops! 11-7 on TFL and 3-2 on sacks. That's pretty minimal differences for a 31-0 game. And that with the Clemson QB being much more elusive. Want a big difference? QBR. 76.3 to 12.7. Watson spread the ball around the field and to a variety of receivers. Barrett threw soft wide passes to his running backs (well over half to running backs), and that shovel pass that fooled absolutely nobody.

So how do two teams whose players look roughly equal play a game where one scores 31 points and the other scores 0? Let me humbly submit that one coach had his team ready to play, had schemes and overall strategy that were excellently adjusted to the strengths and weaknesses of the other team, and had superior play calling on both sides of the ball. Coaching. Swinney kicked Meyer's rear.

Other data? Well, there is some early expert analysis.

From the Sports Illustrated report on the game: Most likely it will be remembered for the creativity and rocket-fueled completions that sent Clemson to another title game appearance.

From Chris Fowler: All of the creativity, all of the innovation was on the Clemson side.

Herbstreit: JT Barrett has taken a step back. The negative impact of losing Tom Herman could be seen. (That's a paraphrase. The man babbles on forever.)

What we saw was two teams with roughly equally matched talent, but one with a much more innovative, clever, and dynamic coaching staff who had a better plan for the day.

 

[topdecktiger]

Nothing is funnier than the "do this homework" post to make an argument. Especially when combined with the pre-emptive, "...and don't you dare present those data that everyone will recognize is a good argument against my point."

Thanks, topdeck, but I'll make my arguments, and you can make yours.

My point, and I'll make it again, is that Dabo Swinney utterly outcoached Urban Meyer. That is why Clemson won 31-0. The argument that they won because they have a host of better players is absurd on the face of it, and not supported by any data.

If you want to look at the relative quality of the players on the two teams, you have to use some metric. If you look at the star rankings of starters on the two teams, OSU has the edge (using 247 Sports). money3189 wanted to compare recruiting classes. With Ohio State? From 2012 to 2016, 247, OSU has 5, 2, 3, 7, 4 in rankings. Clemson has 15, 15, 17, 9, 11. If you look at the number of 5 and 4 star players, it becomes even more dramatic. If you look at current All Americans, OSU has the edge. If you look at current all-conference ratings, the teams are tied (counting first and second teams).

Now, there is no doubt that Clemson kicked OSU up and down the field. But why? Mike, topdeck, and money want to argue that they have much better players. But the data, as we have just seen, don't come close to supporting that argument. The quality of the players is roughly equal for the two teams. So we can discard the Jimmy's and Joe's argument from the perspective of when they walked onto the field.

Topdeck then wants to argue that TFL and sacks will prove the point. But why? Why not look at percent completion, yards per carry, quarterback rating, or any of a dozen other statistics? All of these are influenced both by how well the players played and how well coached they were. But two of the statistics that don't really show much difference in this particular game are TFL and sacks. Oops! 11-7 on TFL and 3-2 on sacks. That's pretty minimal differences for a 31-0 game. And that with the Clemson QB being much more elusive. Want a big difference? QBR. 76.3 to 12.7. Watson spread the ball around the field and to a variety of receivers. Barrett threw soft wide passes to his running backs (well over half to running backs), and that shovel pass that fooled absolutely nobody.

So how do two teams whose players look roughly equal play a game where one scores 31 points and the other scores 0? Let me humbly submit that one coach had his team ready to play, had schemes and overall strategy that were excellently adjusted to the strengths and weaknesses of the other team, and had superior play calling on both sides of the ball. Coaching. Swinney kicked Meyer's rear.

Other data? Well, there is some early expert analysis.

From the Sports Illustrated report on the game: Most likely it will be remembered for the creativity and rocket-fueled completions that sent Clemson to another title game appearance.

From Chris Fowler: All of the creativity, all of the innovation was on the Clemson side.

Herbstreit: JT Barrett has taken a step back. The negative impact of losing Tom Herman could be seen. (That's a paraphrase. The man babbles on forever.)

What we saw was two teams with roughly equally matched talent, but one with a much more innovative, clever, and dynamic coaching staff who had a better plan for the day.

First of all, you need to check your facts. I never said Clemson had "a host of better players." You lumped me in with other posters who said that. That's you making too many assumptions and not paying attention.

Second, ratings by recruiting services is not a reliable metric. That would be like saying the Cleveland Browns have better players because they get so many Top 10 draft picks.

You also aren't taking this into account. It matters WHERE the 4/5 star players are positioned. You can have a bunch of talent in one area (say defensive back) but be weak in another area (say receiver). If another team happens to have better talent in one particular area, they can exploit that weakness, which can change a game.

A perfect example of this is on defensive line. Clemson is #3 in the nation with 46 sacks this year. Ohio St, on the other hand, is #62 with only 26 sacks. So, since you are so big into metrics, that metric could be used to argue that Clemson is better in the defensive front than Ohio St. (Performance is a much better metric than high school recruiting rankings.) Well, that would be supported by how much success Clemson's defensive front had, as opposed to Ohio St.'s

That would also go a long way towards explaining the "out scheming" you are so big on. It's a whole lot harder to "scheme" when the opponent is essentially living in your backfield. That was the case in the game. Clemson's defensive front simply was more disruptive than Ohio St's defensive front. Clemson was able to consistently get pressure on Barrett, and shut down Ohio St's running game. So you tell me. You can't run the ball. Your quarterback is consistently under pressure. What the hell kind of "scheme" are you going to come up with for that?

 

[ashokan]

My point, and I'll make it again, is that Dabo Swinney utterly outcoached Urban Meyer. That is why Clemson won 31-0. The argument that they won because they have a host of better players is absurd on the face of it, and not supported by any data.

I think that's true. I watch OSU more than anyone after Rutgers and I've never seen them look so lost. Whatever OSU practiced for wasn't what they were getting - nor did they look hungry to win. Clemson was full if piss and vinegar and OSU looked tired and hungover

 

[SkilletHead2]

First of all, you need to check your facts. I never said Clemson had "a host of better players." You lumped me in with other posters who said that. That's you making too many assumptions and not paying attention.

Second, ratings by recruiting services is not a reliable metric. That would be like saying the Cleveland Browns have better players because they get so many Top 10 draft picks.

You also aren't taking this into account. It matters WHERE the 4/5 star players are positioned. You can have a bunch of talent in one area (say defensive back) but be weak in another area (say receiver). If another team happens to have better talent in one particular area, they can exploit that weakness, which can change a game.

A perfect example of this is on defensive line. Clemson is #3 in the nation with 46 sacks this year. Ohio St, on the other hand, is #62 with only 26 sacks. So, since you are so big into metrics, that metric could be used to argue that Clemson is better in the defensive front than Ohio St. (Performance is a much better metric than high school recruiting rankings.) Well, that would be supported by how much success Clemson's defensive front had, as opposed to Ohio St.'s

That would also go a long way towards explaining the "out scheming" you are so big on. It's a whole lot harder to "scheme" when the opponent is essentially living in your backfield. That was the case in the game. Clemson's defensive front simply was more disruptive than Ohio St's defensive front. Clemson was able to consistently get pressure on Barrett, and shut down Ohio St's running game. So you tell me. You can't run the ball. Your quarterback is consistently under pressure. What the hell kind of "scheme" are you going to come up with for that?

Sorry to generalize you into the pack topdeck. It's a bit difficult to sort out the nuances when responding to multiple posters. But no, you didn't argue they had a host of better players and I apologize for lumping you in with them.

But your argument on recruiting systems is weak. Of course they aren't as reliable as one might like. But there is no question that OSU is well ahead of Clemson for every year where there would be players in today's game. And again, I am responding to the original, "It's Jimmys and Joes" nonsense. OSU has the Jimmys and Joes and they got their butts absolutely kicked. If it ain't Jimmys and Joes, it has to be coaching. Your argument on the Browns and the draft is also weak. The worst teams get the highest picks. If they had good players, they wouldn't get those picks. But even with the draft slots, every other team gets to take a player before the Browns get their second player. And the Browns are notoriously weak at making first round picks. The smart coaches and GMs make great picks.

With regard to weaknesses, you can only exploit them if you have the right scheme and play-calling. Meyer got clobbered on both sides of the ball on that. Why was the OSU offense better with Herman than it is now? Why has he been successful since moving on? Why did Harbaugh take a pathetic Michigan team and turn them into a national title contender in no time? Because they are great coaches. They get the most out of their players. They know how to scheme and plan against their opponents. How many times did Schiano get outcoached by lesser talented teams early in his tenure?

If Clemson's defensive line is so wonderously better than OSU's defensive line, then why did they only get one more sack than OSU in the game? Did they score 31 points off that sack?

You argue that Clemson has an incredibly good defensive line. And they clearly are good. But at the same time, four teams hung 30 or more points on Clemson this year. Hell, Troy put up 24 against them, and 8-5 Pitt scored 43 against them. Did they all of a sudden become infinitely better against OSU, a team I think we can agree is stronger than Pitt or Troy? Or might it be the case that with a bunch of time to plan, organize, and scheme, that Dabo Swinney simply dramatically outcoached Meyer? Why were they more disruptive against OSU, with two All American O linemen, than against Pitt? I know the arguments against transitivity, but it just doesn't make sense.

Take a step back and think about the game. OSU's game plan was conservative from the outset. Clemson's was far more open, aggressive, and utilised their talent better. There just isn't much of a talent differential between these two teams, and if there is one, the data suggest that it is in favor of OSU. But if you are clever, and creative, you can overcome your weaknesses and play up your strengths. That's what we saw in this game. OSU did nothing to overcome a highly aggressive d-line of Clemson. But a number of other teams did this year. And OSU's D did little to stop Clemson's O.

And by the way, I am in no way arguing that Clemson got lucky, got tricky, or didn't deserve the win. What I'm saying is that I'm not placing the locus of responsibility for that win on superior talent. The data don't support that. They just way outplayed OSU tonight. I credit their coaches for that.

 

[SkilletHead2]

I think that's true. I watch OSU more than anyone after Rutgers and I've never seen them look so lost. Whatever OSU practiced for wasn't what they were getting - nor did they look hungry to win. Clemson was full if piss and vinegar and OSU looked tired and hungover

Agreed. How people can say it's a talent differential is just beyond me. Both teams are very talented. BTW, OSU had three first team AP all Americans and three more second team all Americans. Clemson had 2 second team AA's and 3 third team AA's. Lots of talent there overall, but pretty hard to say that Clemson's is better than OSU's.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Somebody got Skillet lathered up...

 

[mdh2003]

No doubt OSU got out coached. And the talent was obviously similar. But wasn't OSU significantly younger? If so, that had to play a part. This blowout is probably 70/30 on coaching/youth.

 

[money3189]

Nothing is funnier than the "do this homework" post to make an argument. Especially when combined with the pre-emptive, "...and don't you dare present those data that everyone will recognize is a good argument against my point."

Thanks, topdeck, but I'll make my arguments, and you can make yours.

My point, and I'll make it again, is that Dabo Swinney utterly outcoached Urban Meyer. That is why Clemson won 31-0. The argument that they won because they have a host of better players is absurd on the face of it, and not supported by any data.

If you want to look at the relative quality of the players on the two teams, you have to use some metric. If you look at the star rankings of starters on the two teams, OSU has the edge (using 247 Sports). money3189 wanted to compare recruiting classes. With Ohio State? From 2012 to 2016, 247, OSU has 5, 2, 3, 7, 4 in rankings. Clemson has 15, 15, 17, 9, 11. If you look at the number of 5 and 4 star players, it becomes even more dramatic. If you look at current All Americans, OSU has the edge. If you look at current all-conference ratings, the teams are tied (counting first and second teams).

Now, there is no doubt that Clemson kicked OSU up and down the field. But why? Mike, topdeck, and money want to argue that they have much better players. But the data, as we have just seen, don't come close to supporting that argument. The quality of the players is roughly equal for the two teams. So we can discard the Jimmy's and Joe's argument from the perspective of when they walked onto the field.

Topdeck then wants to argue that TFL and sacks will prove the point. But why? Why not look at percent completion, yards per carry, quarterback rating, or any of a dozen other statistics? All of these are influenced both by how well the players played and how well coached they were. But two of the statistics that don't really show much difference in this particular game are TFL and sacks. Oops! 11-7 on TFL and 3-2 on sacks. That's pretty minimal differences for a 31-0 game. And that with the Clemson QB being much more elusive. Want a big difference? QBR. 76.3 to 12.7. Watson spread the ball around the field and to a variety of receivers. Barrett threw soft wide passes to his running backs (well over half to running backs), and that shovel pass that fooled absolutely nobody.

So how do two teams whose players look roughly equal play a game where one scores 31 points and the other scores 0? Let me humbly submit that one coach had his team ready to play, had schemes and overall strategy that were excellently adjusted to the strengths and weaknesses of the other team, and had superior play calling on both sides of the ball. Coaching. Swinney kicked Meyer's rear.

Other data? Well, there is some early expert analysis.

From the Sports Illustrated report on the game: Most likely it will be remembered for the creativity and rocket-fueled completions that sent Clemson to another title game appearance.

From Chris Fowler: All of the creativity, all of the innovation was on the Clemson side.

Herbstreit: JT Barrett has taken a step back. The negative impact of losing Tom Herman could be seen. (That's a paraphrase. The man babbles on forever.)

What we saw was two teams with roughly equally matched talent, but one with a much more innovative, clever, and dynamic coaching staff who had a better plan for the day.

Good facts. I didnt realize Clemson was mostly in the teens for rankings up until the last couple years. You have to factor in coaching when its a lopsided win like this. Preparation, scheme and in game adjustments are part of it.

 

[Section124]

I can't believe I actually agree with the Syracuse fan here. This board is so lost thinking that Ohio St was in the same class as Clemson. Ohio St talent is still young. They played like crap most of the year. If they get a QB next year, watch out. That being said, let's face it. The B1G was overrated this year. Michigan lost to Iowa. Hell, we almost beat Iowa. I was never sold on their QB either. It pains me to say that Penn St deserved the playoff spot over OSU. I never believed in Barrett as a quality QB and he proved it again.

Clemson has guys all in their prime and Williams and Cain didn't play last year. It really shows how little this board really knows/watches college football. Clemson was just going through the motions this year. I had them winning 41-10 in this game. To say the ACC sucks just shows this board is in denial. I agree Florida St and Clemson are far above the rest of the league, but after Ohio St and Michigan, the B1G and ACC are similar.

Just my $.02.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Sorry to generalize you into the pack topdeck. It's a bit difficult to sort out the nuances when responding to multiple posters. But no, you didn't argue they had a host of better players and I apologize for lumping you in with them.

But your argument on recruiting systems is weak. Of course they aren't as reliable as one might like. But there is no question that OSU is well ahead of Clemson for every year where there would be players in today's game. And again, I am responding to the original, "It's Jimmys and Joes" nonsense. OSU has the Jimmys and Joes and they got their butts absolutely kicked. If it ain't Jimmys and Joes, it has to be coaching. Your argument on the Browns and the draft is also weak. The worst teams get the highest picks. If they had good players, they wouldn't get those picks. But even with the draft slots, every other team gets to take a player before the Browns get their second player. And the Browns are notoriously weak at making first round picks. The smart coaches and GMs make great picks.

With regard to weaknesses, you can only exploit them if you have the right scheme and play-calling. Meyer got clobbered on both sides of the ball on that. Why was the OSU offense better with Herman than it is now? Why has he been successful since moving on? Why did Harbaugh take a pathetic Michigan team and turn them into a national title contender in no time? Because they are great coaches. They get the most out of their players. They know how to scheme and plan against their opponents. How many times did Schiano get outcoached by lesser talented teams early in his tenure?

If Clemson's defensive line is so wonderously better than OSU's defensive line, then why did they only get one more sack than OSU in the game? Did they score 31 points off that sack?

You argue that Clemson has an incredibly good defensive line. And they clearly are good. But at the same time, four teams hung 30 or more points on Clemson this year. Hell, Troy put up 24 against them, and 8-5 Pitt scored 43 against them. Did they all of a sudden become infinitely better against OSU, a team I think we can agree is stronger than Pitt or Troy? Or might it be the case that with a bunch of time to plan, organize, and scheme, that Dabo Swinney simply dramatically outcoached Meyer? Why were they more disruptive against OSU, with two All American O linemen, than against Pitt? I know the arguments against transitivity, but it just doesn't make sense.

Take a step back and think about the game. OSU's game plan was conservative from the outset. Clemson's was far more open, aggressive, and utilised their talent better. There just isn't much of a talent differential between these two teams, and if there is one, the data suggest that it is in favor of OSU. But if you are clever, and creative, you can overcome your weaknesses and play up your strengths. That's what we saw in this game. OSU did nothing to overcome a highly aggressive d-line of Clemson. But a number of other teams did this year. And OSU's D did little to stop Clemson's O.

And by the way, I am in no way arguing that Clemson got lucky, got tricky, or didn't deserve the win. What I'm saying is that I'm not placing the locus of responsibility for that win on superior talent. The data don't support that. They just way outplayed OSU tonight. I credit their coaches for that.

Skillet

One problem I have with recruiting rankings which you reference is they are subjective and not absolute. In the end a team with a #5 Rivals ranking may (after 4 years) prove to be no better (or worse) than a team initially ranked #15. Coaching and player development are just as important (or even more important) than the initial ranking.

Referencing Pitt's win over Clemson as some type of argument that Clemson is not an elite team just doesn't hold water. Pitt (while not an elite program) is a pretty good football team (coaching and player development) who can play competitively with anyone. The Pitt win over Clemson was not a fluke as Pitt was also able to beat the B1G Conference Champion this year. If you look at Pitt's 13 opponents you will see that Pitt never lost a game by more than 7 points.

Recruiting rankings are not everything. Just ask Texas, Notre Dame, LSU among others.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[money3189]

I can't believe I actually agree with the Syracuse fan here. This board is so lost thinking that Ohio St was in the same class as Clemson. Ohio St talent is still young. They played like crap most of the year. If they get a QB next year, watch out. That being said, let's face it. The B1G was overrated this year. Michigan lost to Iowa. Hell, we almost beat Iowa. I was never sold on their QB either. It pains me to say that Penn St deserved the playoff spot over OSU. I never believed in Barrett as a quality QB and he proved it again.

Clemson has guys all in their prime and Williams and Cain didn't play last year. It really shows how little this board really knows/watches college football. Clemson was just going through the motions this year. I had them winning 41-10 in this game. To say the ACC sucks just shows this board is in denial. I agree Florida St and Clemson are far above the rest of the league, but after Ohio St and Michigan, the B1G and ACC are similar.

Just my $.02.

People can take shots at Cuse all they want. I expect that on this board. They aren't good but for some to say the ACC is not good makes no sense. Don't let your hatred for SU blind your eyes. There are some very talented teams in the conference that are capable of beating any team.

 

[money3189]

Skillet

One problem I have with recruiting rankings which you reference is they are subjective and not absolute. In the end a team with a #5 Rivals ranking may (after 4 years) prove to be no better (or worse) than a team initially ranked #15. Coaching and player development are just as important (or even more important) than the initial ranking.

Referencing Pitt's win over Clemson as some type of argument that Clemson is not an elite team just doesn't hold water. Pitt (while not an elite program) is a pretty good football team (coaching and player development) who can play competitively with anyone. The Pitt win over Clemson was not a fluke as Pitt was also able to beat the B1G Conference Champion this year. If you look at Pitt's 13 opponents you will see that Pitt never lost a game by more than 7 points.

Recruiting rankings are not everything. Just ask Texas, Notre Dame, LSU among others.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Clemson underestimated how good Pitt's offense was.

 

[shields]

My hope for the new year is that money goes away.

 

[mdh2003]

It pains me to say that Penn St deserved the playoff spot over OSU.

Nah. In the words of The Iron Sheik, Michigan humbled them.

The truth is, looks like none of the BIG teams deserved it. Not a biggie, no PAC or B12 deserved it either. There are probably only 2 deservng teams this year, and they are in the champ game.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Clemson underestimated how good Pitt's offense was.

Yes

Averaged 44 points per game.

If only we had a little more on defense, it could have been a terrific year.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[LotusAggressor]

The takeaway from this game is the limitations of Meyer's power spread offense when the QB isn't a great passer, there's no RB like Elliott, the WRs can't get separation, and the OL is dominated. Sounds familiar.

 

[money3189]

Yes

Averaged 44 points per game.

If only we had a little more on defense, it could have been a terrific year.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Defense was disappointing. I run the same scheme in HS. You need the corners to run it the way Narduzzi wants. It will take another year or two to get the defense at the level he wants. Hopefully SU can get its defense together. I have a feeling it will take longer than Pitt lol.

 

[money3189]

My hope for the new year is that money goes away.

lol what did I do to you?

 

[Cheesesteak Vegas]

Nah. In the words of The Iron Sheik, Michigan humbled them.

The truth is, looks like none of the BIG teams deserved it. Not a biggie, no PAC or B12 deserved it either. There are probably only 2 deservng teams this year, and they are in the champ game.

To be clear, Michigan humbled a Penn State team playing with half a defense in late September. It didn't humble the Penn State team we watched over the last two months.

 

[MADHAT1]

Panthergrowl13 said:"Recruiting rankings are not everything. Just ask Texas, Notre Dame, LSU among others."
That is true, but the odds of being a top FB program is a lot better when you have top recruiting classes every year.
Clemson, OSU and Bama didn't get into the playoffs because of a roster of under the radar players that produced. They brought in enough top HS talent every year to be a top 10 program every and when some of that talent didn't produce, another talented player was there to take that spot. Occasionally an under the radar or walk-on produced enough to be a starter, but the top talent coming every year kept those 3 programs one of the best in nation practically every year and a consent top 25 program.

 

[topdecktiger]

Sorry to generalize you into the pack topdeck. It's a bit difficult to sort out the nuances when responding to multiple posters. But no, you didn't argue they had a host of better players and I apologize for lumping you in with them.

But your argument on recruiting systems is weak. Of course they aren't as reliable as one might like. But there is no question that OSU is well ahead of Clemson for every year where there would be players in today's game. And again, I am responding to the original, "It's Jimmys and Joes" nonsense. OSU has the Jimmys and Joes and they got their butts absolutely kicked. If it ain't Jimmys and Joes, it has to be coaching. Your argument on the Browns and the draft is also weak. The worst teams get the highest picks. If they had good players, they wouldn't get those picks. But even with the draft slots, every other team gets to take a player before the Browns get their second player. And the Browns are notoriously weak at making first round picks. The smart coaches and GMs make great picks.

With regard to weaknesses, you can only exploit them if you have the right scheme and play-calling. Meyer got clobbered on both sides of the ball on that. Why was the OSU offense better with Herman than it is now? Why has he been successful since moving on? Why did Harbaugh take a pathetic Michigan team and turn them into a national title contender in no time? Because they are great coaches. They get the most out of their players. They know how to scheme and plan against their opponents. How many times did Schiano get outcoached by lesser talented teams early in his tenure?

If Clemson's defensive line is so wonderously better than OSU's defensive line, then why did they only get one more sack than OSU in the game? Did they score 31 points off that sack?

You argue that Clemson has an incredibly good defensive line. And they clearly are good. But at the same time, four teams hung 30 or more points on Clemson this year. Hell, Troy put up 24 against them, and 8-5 Pitt scored 43 against them. Did they all of a sudden become infinitely better against OSU, a team I think we can agree is stronger than Pitt or Troy? Or might it be the case that with a bunch of time to plan, organize, and scheme, that Dabo Swinney simply dramatically outcoached Meyer? Why were they more disruptive against OSU, with two All American O linemen, than against Pitt? I know the arguments against transitivity, but it just doesn't make sense.

Take a step back and think about the game. OSU's game plan was conservative from the outset. Clemson's was far more open, aggressive, and utilised their talent better. There just isn't much of a talent differential between these two teams, and if there is one, the data suggest that it is in favor of OSU. But if you are clever, and creative, you can overcome your weaknesses and play up your strengths. That's what we saw in this game. OSU did nothing to overcome a highly aggressive d-line of Clemson. But a number of other teams did this year. And OSU's D did little to stop Clemson's O.

And by the way, I am in no way arguing that Clemson got lucky, got tricky, or didn't deserve the win. What I'm saying is that I'm not placing the locus of responsibility for that win on superior talent. The data don't support that. They just way outplayed OSU tonight. I credit their coaches for that.

-No, my argument on recruiting rankings is not weak. There are two reasons. First, recruiting rankings are strictly based on players performance in high school. Those rankings are not based on a single snap against college-level competition. They are essentially the equivalent of preseason polls.

-My argument about the Browns is not weak either. The Browns consistently get Top 5-10 picks every year. They should accumulate a group of good players over time. However, they don't. The reason again goes back to my point. Draft picks are college players who have not played a single snap against NFL competition. It's just speculation and prediction. The only true measure is what they do when they actually get into the NFL, just the same as the only true way to measure recruits is by what they do when they actually get into college.

-Why did Clemson's defensive line only get one more sack in the game? Well first off, Ohio St only ran 56 plays for the entire game, (of which 23 were runs). Clemson was getting pressure on Barrett almost all night. They forced him to get rid of the ball. I'll give you an example. In the 1st quarter, Barrett actually made a heck of a play, and got a first down on a pass to his tight end on the sideline. Well, the thing is, that play only worked because of an exceptional effort by Barrett. Clemson got pressure straight up the middle and flushed Barrett out of the pocket. A linebacker chased down Barrett and tackled him. Barrett was able to release the ball just before he went down, and hit his tight end on the sideline (who was open because the DB left his assignment to close in on Barrett). The point being, Clemson blew up the original play, and Ohio St only got positive yardage because of a sandlot play by Barrett. THAT is why Meyer wasn't being "creative." Barrett had pressure in his face all night, and simply had to get rid of the ball. You keep saying Meyer was being conservative. You simply don't understand that Meyer couldn't call aggressive plays because Clemson was simply blowing up the plays at the line of scrimmage, and the plays didn't have time to develop.

-Your question as to why Clemson gave up points to other teams, but not Ohio St. It does make sense. This is why I criticized you earlier. You can't go by rankings or generalization. You have to go by what physically happens on the field. You mentioned the Pitt game. There is where you have to go by actual physical matchups, not rankings on paper. Pitt has one of the physically biggest offensive lines in college football. Not one of the best offensive lines, but one of the biggest. Well, that's a matchup problem for Clemson. Why? Because Clemson doesn't have speed rushers on the line. (In fact, one DE moved over from DT this year.) Clemson is effective by overpowering opposing lines. Well, being that Pitt's OL is simply physically big, they are able to somewhat neutralize Clemson's strength. Now, when Pitt goes up against a smaller, quicker defensive front (like Miami), they get killed, because it's a bad matchup for them. That's my point about matchups vs. rankings.

Clemson wasn't particularly more "open" or "aggressive" than Ohio St. I know. I've watched every single snap Clemson has played this year. They didn't do anything different than they did earlier in the year. (In fact, they ran Watson less then they have the last few games.) In fact, Ohio St's defense wasn't particularly bad. Clemson averages 40 points per game, and Ohio St gave up 31. Clemson averages 506 yards per game, and Ohio St gave up 470. Both were below season averages. The difference in the game was simple. Clemson's defensive line was just a lot more disruptive than Ohio St's defensive line. The strength of Ohio St's defense is it's secondary, not the D Line. It's the opposite with Clemson.

 

[money3189]

Panthergrowl13 said:"Recruiting rankings are not everything. Just ask Texas, Notre Dame, LSU among others."
That is true, but the odds of being a top FB program is a lot better when you have top recruiting classes every year.
Clemson, OSU and Bama didn't get into the playoffs because of a roster of under the radar players that produced. They brought in enough top HS talent every year to be a top 10 program every and when some of that talent didn't produce, another talented player was there to take that spot. Occasionally an under the radar or walk-on produced enough to be a starter, but the top talent coming every year kept those 3 programs one of the best in nation practically every year and a consent top 25 program.

I look at it like this, You dont see top 25 recruiting classed translate into top 25 teams. Setting the culture, developing players, injuries, transfers, in game adjustments takes over after those stars are given. Recruiting is the big part of it but its not the only thing. Georgia and Oklahoma currently has the 3rd and 4th ranked classes in the country. Does that mean they will automatically be ranked 3rd and 4th in the country 3 years from now? There's too many other factors but recruiting high quality players helps.

 

[Knight Shift]

-


-Your question as to why Clemson gave up points to other teams, but not Ohio St. It does make sense. This is why I criticized you earlier. You can't go by rankings or generalization. You have to go by what physically happens on the field. You mentioned the Pitt game. There is where you have to go by actual physical matchups, not rankings on paper. Pitt has one of the physically biggest offensive lines in college football. Not one of the best offensive lines, but one of the biggest. Well, that's a matchup problem for Clemson. Why? Because Clemson doesn't have speed rushers on the line. (In fact, one DE moved over from DT this year.) Clemson is effective by overpowering opposing lines. Well, being that Pitt's OL is simply physically big, they are able to somewhat neutralize Clemson's strength. Now, when Pitt goes up against a smaller, quicker defensive front (like Miami), they get killed, because it's a bad matchup for them. That's my point about matchups vs. rankings.

End of thread, right here.
A lot of this thread is a lot of BS conference chest thumping nonsense.

 

[money3189]

End of thread, right here.
A lot of this thread is a lot of BS conference chest thumping nonsense.

B10 is a great and prestigious conference. Year in and year out they have great teams that compete hard, but if your gonna think other teams and conferences are not good and cannot get better, then I don't know what to tell you. That's football. If storied programs like Michigan and Penn st can turn it around, why can't Miami or VT? Big 10 only has 3 titles in 30 years. ACC has won 4 in that timeframe, and thats not including Miami.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Somebody got Skillet lathered up...

The one thing I can't stand is the abuse of data!

 

[Knight Shift]

The one thing I can't stand is the abuse of data!

What are you, a statistics professor? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[SkilletHead2]

-No, my argument on recruiting rankings is not weak. There are two reasons. First, recruiting rankings are strictly based on players performance in high school. Those rankings are not based on a single snap against college-level competition. They are essentially the equivalent of preseason polls.

-My argument about the Browns is not weak either. The Browns consistently get Top 5-10 picks every year. They should accumulate a group of good players over time. However, they don't. The reason again goes back to my point. Draft picks are college players who have not played a single snap against NFL competition. It's just speculation and prediction. The only true measure is what they do when they actually get into the NFL, just the same as the only true way to measure recruits is by what they do when they actually get into college.

-Why did Clemson's defensive line only get one more sack in the game? Well first off, Ohio St only ran 56 plays for the entire game, (of which 23 were runs). Clemson was getting pressure on Barrett almost all night. They forced him to get rid of the ball. I'll give you an example. In the 1st quarter, Barrett actually made a heck of a play, and got a first down on a pass to his tight end on the sideline. Well, the thing is, that play only worked because of an exceptional effort by Barrett. Clemson got pressure straight up the middle and flushed Barrett out of the pocket. A linebacker chased down Barrett and tackled him. Barrett was able to release the ball just before he went down, and hit his tight end on the sideline (who was open because the DB left his assignment to close in on Barrett). The point being, Clemson blew up the original play, and Ohio St only got positive yardage because of a sandlot play by Barrett. THAT is why Meyer wasn't being "creative." Barrett had pressure in his face all night, and simply had to get rid of the ball. You keep saying Meyer was being conservative. You simply don't understand that Meyer couldn't call aggressive plays because Clemson was simply blowing up the plays at the line of scrimmage, and the plays didn't have time to develop.

-Your question as to why Clemson gave up points to other teams, but not Ohio St. It does make sense. This is why I criticized you earlier. You can't go by rankings or generalization. You have to go by what physically happens on the field. You mentioned the Pitt game. There is where you have to go by actual physical matchups, not rankings on paper. Pitt has one of the physically biggest offensive lines in college football. Not one of the best offensive lines, but one of the biggest. Well, that's a matchup problem for Clemson. Why? Because Clemson doesn't have speed rushers on the line. (In fact, one DE moved over from DT this year.) Clemson is effective by overpowering opposing lines. Well, being that Pitt's OL is simply physically big, they are able to somewhat neutralize Clemson's strength. Now, when Pitt goes up against a smaller, quicker defensive front (like Miami), they get killed, because it's a bad matchup for them. That's my point about matchups vs. rankings.

Clemson wasn't particularly more "open" or "aggressive" than Ohio St. I know. I've watched every single snap Clemson has played this year. They didn't do anything different than they did earlier in the year. (In fact, they ran Watson less then they have the last few games.) In fact, Ohio St's defense wasn't particularly bad. Clemson averages 40 points per game, and Ohio St gave up 31. Clemson averages 506 yards per game, and Ohio St gave up 470. Both were below season averages. The difference in the game was simple. Clemson's defensive line was just a lot more disruptive than Ohio St's defensive line. The strength of Ohio St's defense is it's secondary, not the D Line. It's the opposite with Clemson.

Weak, weaker, weakest.

Recruiting classes. Yep, class rankings are based on HS performance. But they are the best estimates of college potential available. And they hold up. Not perfect, but your typical 5 star is better than the 4 star is better than the 3 star, etc. And on this metric, OSU is substantially better than Clemson during the years we are talking about.

The Browns. Can't believe I even have to defend this one. The draft affords weak teams one pick better than the best teams. Huh? Yep. Let's say Cleveland gets the #3 pick and the Patriots get the #32 pick. Wow, huge advantage to the Browns! Why aren't they Super Bowl Champs with all those advantages? Well, because after the Browns have taken that one pick, added one player to their 46 man roster, the advantage shifts to the Pats. They now have the better pick. If you cede the Browns 1/46 of an advantage, on every other pick (save the last one), the Pats get the higher pick. The only way you can successfully build a team through the draft (not maintain, but build), is by trading your present for the future. Trade whatever good players you have right now for future picks and stockpile them. Now, every couple of years, there is a Dak Prescott in the draft (or a Tom Brady or Richard Sherman) -- somebody no one really saw as good as he is. But for the most part, the draft is accurate, because there is a lot of data available on the quality of players.

(And of course, you completely ignore the all conference and all American data, which are exactly based on how well these players did during the year. Why, I wonder? Because it blows a hole in your argument?)

Pitt was a bad matchup for Clemson because of the size of their line? Really? Pitt's O-Line averages 314 pounds. Not that is big. OSU's averages 308 pounds. What was that extra 6 pounds? Kryptonite? And btw, OSU's offensive line includes two All Americans, to Pitt's zero.

At the end of the day, Clemson beat OSU in every aspect of the game. They had twice as much energy, played much smarter, had a better game plan, and better execution. That's why they won, 31-0. My point isn't that they didn't go out and play great. They were amazing. My point is, and always has been, it wasn't because they have 31-0 better quality players, as implied way earlier in this thread (and not by you!). Any objective analysis of the quality of the players on the two teams suggests that it is OSU with the better players. Now, given that OSU is a bit younger than Clemson, that might be a leveling factor. But the notion that Clemson won due to far superior players just isn't supported by the data. And that has been my point all along. OSU had an abysmal game plan. Ask any OSU fan. Consider Curtis Samuel. He had one good run all day. Otherwise, he had 5 carries for 3 yards. And 9 receptions for 43 yards. He had a terrible game. Is it because he isn't any good? He's an All American.

Meyer got outcoached. Post game interviews suggest he was looking past Clemson a bit. Don't know. Do know he got outcoached by a mile by Swinney. Clemson came to play and knew what they were doing. OSU looked like a bunch of deer in the headlights. Can't put that on the players.

 

[Section124]

Skillet. Time to take a timeout from this thread. I can't even believe how much you typed here. The game was simple. Clemson had better overall personnel due to experience. OSU was a year ahead of schedule. It's that simple.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Skillet. Time to take a timeout from this thread. I can't even believe how much you typed here. The game was simple. Clemson had better overall personnel due to experience. OSU was a year ahead of schedule. It's that simple.

You have to take into account that I'm up when all you guys are sleeping! Plenty of time then! Your argument is a facile one, but not supported by the data. If it were experience, then why did JT Barrett, Curtis Samuel, and Pat Elflein all have such miserable games? Experience is nice, and OSU did lose a ton of players to the NFL, but OSU came into this game 11-1 against one of the toughest schedules in the nation, averaging 39 points a game. That didn't all disappear. They had a terrible game plan, made no adjustments, and looked like deer in the headlights.

Think of it this way. Everybody knew who was playing for each team, and yet OSU came in the favorite. By folks who do this for a living and are amazing at getting spreads right. This is like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody say it coming!

 

[RU old timer]

Isn't it more fun arguing the innocence or guilt of Tim, Robert, Julie, Kyle, and Chris lol lol lol lol lol lol. We've only been doing that for a few years!!!!!!

 

[Section124]

You have to take into account that I'm up when all you guys are sleeping! Plenty of time then! Your argument is a facile one, but not supported by the data. If it were experience, then why did JT Barrett, Curtis Samuel, and Pat Elflein all have such miserable games? Experience is nice, and OSU did lose a ton of players to the NFL, but OSU came into this game 11-1 against one of the toughest schedules in the nation, averaging 39 points a game. That didn't all disappear. They had a terrible game plan, made no adjustments, and looked like deer in the headlights.

Think of it this way. Everybody knew who was playing for each team, and yet OSU came in the favorite. By folks who do this for a living and are amazing at getting spreads right. This is like the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody say it coming!

Clemson has essentially the same team back this year that almost won the title last year (with the experience of all lessons learned last year). That is the experience on why they dominated yesterday. Barrett didn't play when they won the title 2 years ago. Most of last years team was gone. Game planning only gets you so far. I think you also discount how good the Clemson staff is. No need to analyze data here. I saw this game as 41-10 Clemson from the beginning.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Clemson has essentially the same team back this year that almost won the title last year (with the experience of all lessons learned last year). That is the experience on why they dominated yesterday. Barrett didn't play when they won the title 2 years ago. Most of last years team was gone. Game planning only gets you so far. I think you also discount how good the Clemson staff is. No need to analyze data here. I saw this game as 41-10 Clemson from the beginning.

8 returning starters on offense, 4 returning starters on defense. Not exactly "essentially the same team." But that's more than Bama, so I'm guessing Clemson's a lock for the national championship?